London Tube Dangerous for Technophiles? 971
TsukiKage writes "Traveling on the London Tube is dangerous these days, it seems - and not because of terrorists. Quick as ever to try and protect against the attack that has just happened, zealous police will detain you at the drop of a hat." From the article: "The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read. The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act."
the defense of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
The MBTA [mbta.com] in Bostonhas instituted a search policy on the commuter rail and subway. They say the station I come into in the morning (North Station) has about 25000 people come in during rush hours in the AM, making it impracticel tosearch everyone. Ithink "random" searches are never random -- people gettargetted.
The ACLU has a detailed page describing how to deal with a search request [aclu-mass.org]. One of the primary differences in the US and UK is clearly illustrated -- I don't mean this as a slam on the UK, merely pointing out a difference. In the US every ctizen is supposed to be immune from unreasonable search [cornell.edu]. Of course the definition of reasonable is opem to debate. But it's only by people pushing against crazy things like these train searches that we are able to defend indivual freedoms.
With the recent supreme court ruling in the Hiibel case [epic.org] it's more important than ever that citzens defend the right that are given to them. I hope other Bostonians will print out a copy of the ACLU's advice page [aclu-mass.org] ann keep it with them when they travel on the T. If you are an American and live in a place that has unreasonable searches, contact your local ACLU and see what they advise.
Regretting that you can't do something in the war on terror? Here's your opportunity. Defend civil liberties at home.
Victim's website (Score:5, Informative)
This is also published on the victim's website. [gizmonaut.net] Also on there is a description of the suicide bomber profile [gizmonaut.net] the police use - which many geeks will also fit.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
UK law is quite clear - you can use reasonable force in the cause of self-defense. You can't, as he did, lie in wait for a burglar then shoot him in the back as he runs away from you. There is no self-defense case there.
It's not really surprising that assault with a firearm carries a higher penalty than a failed attempt at burglary.
Phil
Re:immediately handcuff you? (Score:2, Informative)
At least that is how the Founders created this nation. In practice, the government has become a cancer on the nation.
what's in a name? (Score:3, Informative)
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
Depends on "reasonable". (Score:5, Informative)
The TPA is supposed to have safeguards, preventing wanton abuse by the police - otherwise they'd just call everyone a terrorist and sort out who was what over the week they get before having to present some evidence. The police can't just arrest anyone they happen to feel like. Well, they can, they're just going to get bollicked by the courts if they try, as happened in the aforementioned case.
This is no different from in the US, where anyone can physically be arrested by the police and subject to whatever searches the police feel like. The Constitution is just paper, it can't physically intervene. All a person can do is plead their case in court and hope for a sensible judge. (More than a few convictions in the US have been overturned on appeal, because the Miranda rights were violated - deomonstrating that it can take several rounds before anyone pays attention.)
It's also important to note we don't know ALL of the facts of the case. For all we know, British Intelligence may have tipped the police off that an attack was likely on that route, sometime soon. In which case, you're dealing with an entirely different scenario to one where the police were acting spontaneously, without due cause. All we can do, at this point, is guess as to the motives involved and the information the police had posessed. (I shall refrain from drawing inferences about the demonic nature of anti-terror squads that posess.)
Re:Brave New World! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Terrorism Act (Score:3, Informative)
Thankfully, much of the bill has a sunset. If you ask me, all bills should have a sunset. It forces us to renew the debate and see if the bill is still popular. It would also help us get some of the dumber laws off the books.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
Let me be blunt: they go by race. Completely. Girl in line in front of me at customs seemed to be of indian or pakistani descent, but spoke English clearly enough that I assumed she was raised in Canada and was likely a Canadian citizen.
Of course, they went completely through her bags and took quite a while with her. My wife and I went through quickly, as did several other non-middle-eastern folks. There was a family of 5 that simply took forever because they were quite obviously recent immigrants.
Right or wrong, there is no doubt that "random selection" has become a euphemism for racial profiling.
Re:Were his rights violated (Score:5, Informative)
As of 8 September (over a month after his arrest), some of David's possessions had not been returned. I don't know whether they have yet - he doesn't say.
The investigation was thorough, quick, and ultimately vindicating.
Maybe you have built up tolerance of bureaucracy, but I don't call 9.5hrs from arrest to release "quick", especially seeing as he didn't get to call his worried girlfriend until 3hrs later, and get a drink of water until 4hrs later. Further, he hasn't yet received a letter officially stating that he's off the hook.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately Totally Legal (Score:2, Informative)
The officers do not need any reason, other than they are conducting a search for "terrorist" activities. The area defined in Section 43/44 powers becomes a stop and search zone. There does not have to be any ground for suspicion against the individual(s) searched, just that the powers are applied to the area because the area is at risk. If sufficient manpower was available *everyone* could be searched under Section 43/44 so long as a current order is in place. Your local Constabulary will be able to tell you if one applies in your area, and most publish notices on their web sites too (for "London" you will need to look at the Metropolitain, City of London, and British Transport Police sites).
Here's what Section 43/44 says:
43. - (1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.
(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.
44. - (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given-
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the Cit
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:4, Informative)
Uh. Yeah. MOST people I see on the London transport network try their best to avoid any eye contact with anyone, and seeing police in London is so common that they're hardly worthy any extra notice.
--two other men entered the station at about the same time as me;
Uhuh. Because that is really unusual at Southwark during the evening rush... For those unfamiliar with it, Southwark is the closest tube station to Waterloo East, and thus a significant interchange point along one of the main rail lines in/out of central London as well as being in the middle of an area with a significant number of large office buildings.
--I am wearing a jacket "too warm for the season";
Except that it was a cold day...
--I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;
Ok, so carrying a bulky rucksack a week after the failed attacks on the 21st was perhaps asking for some extra attention - and the way I understood it he wouldn't have complained if they'd let him go when having checked out his rucksack. But keeping it with him at all times? Anyone travelling regularly into London can more or less recite the security warnings that go out over the speakers at every damn tube and rail station every few minutes telling us in a few different wordings to keep our belongings with us at all times to avoid uneccesary security alerts or they might get removed or destroyed by the security services... Whenever I have a rucksack or suitcase with me, I hold on to it at all times - I'd rather not have my laptop blown up, thank you very much.
--I looked at people coming on the platform;
Hey, one of my favorite pastimes when waiting for a train. Waiting is boring. Looking around you is a fairly natural way of making time pass.
--I played with my phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.
Seriously... That just describes about half the travellers on my route to work.
But we agree that the rest of what he went through was ridiculous. Makes me wonder why I've never been stopped considering I've carried bulky rucksacks with me to/from work several times a week, but I guess being blonde and blue eyes they don't think I'm capable of doing anything bad.
Re:Lucky. (Score:3, Informative)
Well...
Here he is wearing sunglasses at an anti-war protest in 2001 [gizmonaut.net].
And here he is again at the same protest [gizmonaut.net].
Here he is with the past editors of .EXE magazine [gizmonaut.net]
and here he is weilding a very large knife in an obviously threatening manner [gizmonaut.net].
Does he look dangerous enough to stop? You be the judge.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:1, Informative)
Nevertheless, it is scary what he was subjected to only based on "suspicious" behavior.
As for being lucky you're in the US, I guess you've missed how innocent people were locked up for weeks or months after 9/11 with no charges. He got out within 24 hours is still much better than the shit you may be subjected to in the US just because you look "arab".
But I guess in your case, ignorance is bliss.
Re:Great New World!! (Score:2, Informative)
And yet, with CCTV footage we've caught the people who tried to blow up more trains on July 21, and probably gained more intelligence about the whole operation because of that.
After the fact. The fact that the second attack failed was purely a result of the bombers' ineptitude, and had nothing to do with interception by the police.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:4, Informative)
Girl arrested over Bollocks to Blair shirt [horseandhound.co.uk]
22 September, 2005
Police arrested a 20-year-old gamekeeper for wearing a "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt at a game fair last weekend
A girl was arrested for wearing her "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt at the Midlands Game Fair last weekend. Charlotte Denis, 20, a gamekeeper from Gloucestershire, was stopped by police as she left the Countryside Alliance stand because of the "offensive" slogan.Shocked and dismayed to be made a public spectacle, Denis tried to reason with the officers: "What do you want me to do? Take my top off and wear my bra?"
At this point, two officers marched Denis towards a police car. "They grabbed me as if I was a football hooligan," she says.
Although the "Bollocks to Blair" slogan was in evidence all round the Game Fair, police maintained it was the first time they had seen it.
"They had to walk past a huge banner in order to get to me and there were lots of other people wearing the T-shirts," explained Denis.
A tearful Denis was driven to a mobile police unit. "I asked the officers how they could arrest someone for wearing a T-shirt and they told me it was because it would offend a 70-80-year-old woman," she said.
After agreeing to wear a friend's coat, Denis was released without charge. But the incident ruined her day: "You don't expect to be treated like that at a country fair," she said.
Denis bought her T-shirt at Badminton Horse Trials last year, as well as a matching badge she wears on her coat.
"Bollocks to Blair" merchandise is manufactured by Splash and first appeared last year.
"The demand has been crazy," said Splash director Toby Rhodes. "The slogan is an expression of anger in the countryside -- which we are not trying to incite. We originally thought it a bit too direct for us but it has been popular with all ages. I've been told that some police officers wear the T-shirts under their uniforms."
"It's complete nonsense," said the Countryside Alliance. "The police surely have better things to do with their time than protect the Prime Minister's modesty."
This news story was first published in Horse & Hound (22 September, '05)
racial profiling... (Score:2, Informative)
Brazilian Shot Dead. Is there another way? (Score:2, Informative)
What I do know is that in any case it helps create an awful fear-laden atmosphere that makes everybody jittery, and for sure causes things like this (see below) or others like random killings of law-abiding turban-wearing or olive-skinned people.
Plus, just do the math. How much does it cost to set-up and blow a car-bomb or a suicide bomber? How much does it cost to try and prevent it? Probably at least 100 times more, and the prevention is most likely to fail at some point. Meanwhile, billions of dollars that could be helping people are badly spent, we cant bring nail cutters into airplanes, etc.
Can't we do it some other way? Try peace for a change. How hard is it to just show other people we don't hate them and that they have no reason to hate us? Can we spend a little bit on that as a means to prevent terrorrism?
About Jean Charles, the Brazilian shot dead:
From the BBC [bbc.co.uk]:
"22 JULY
Police shoot dead a man dead at Stockwell Tube station in south London. They say he was challenged and refused to obey an order.
Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the shooting was "directly linked" to the ongoing London bombs inquiry.
Police say it is not yet clear if the man was one of four suspects involved in the failed 21 July attacks.
They say he was under observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched.
He was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, police say.
(...)
17 AUGUST
Leaked documents contradict previous accounts of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Appearing to be from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry into the shooting and leaked to ITV News, they suggest the Brazilian was restrained before being shot eight times.
ITV images show Mr de Menezes lying dead in a Tube train
They contradict eyewitness reports suggesting Mr Menezes jumped a barrier at Stockwell Tube station and was wearing a padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb.
They suggest he was wearing a denim jacket and walked into the station, picked up a free newspaper and walked through ticket barriers. It is suggested he only started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down when he was shot.
(...)
"
For more see Google News [google.com]
Yes, handuffed for safety of officers (Score:3, Informative)
I was trained (Reserve Peace Officer, California) that "swarming" a person is legally justified via safety, both the person being interviewed and the officer's. Similiarly searching a person to be interviewed is legally justified via safety. In fact I was trained to begin the instructions for the search with the phrase "For your safety and mine
Now I was not trained to deal with suicide bombers but it would seem a natural extention of past policies and law that handcuffing a person being interviewed and/or breifly detained regarding suicide bombing would be appropriate. The safety of the officers conducting the interview being the legal justification. It seems necessary to prevent a bomber from reaching for a detonator switch.
FWIW, handcuffing is not incarceration, it is not even arrest. It is retraint to facilitate safety, a judgement call where reasonableness varies wildly with the situation. It can be used during interviews and brief detensions before deciding to place someone under arrest and taking them to the station. It is merely uncommon to use handcuffs during interviews.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.amperspective.com/html/aclu_report_12-
The ACLU said that these men were among hundreds of Muslims who were arbitrarily and indiscriminately arrested even though they had not engaged in criminal activity of any sort. The men languished in jail - sometimes in solitary confinement - for weeks and sometimes months, even after it became clear that they were innocent of any charges related to terrorism.
An earlier ACLU report, America's Disappeared, discussed the roundups and detentions. For many, the nightmare began with their arrest. FBI and immigration officials dragged some people out of their houses in the middle of the night in front of frightened wives and children.
Others were picked up for being in the wrong place -- like Ahmed Abualeinen, who was arrested by agents who had come looking for his roommate but took him instead. Still others were arrested after routine traffic stops.
For many, it would be days before they could contact their families with their whereabouts and weeks before they could access legal help. The government refused to release the names of people it had detained. Behind bars, many suffered from harassment and even physical abuse
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGA
Ottawa -- The new U.S. ambassador to Canada is making no apologies for Maher Arar's deportation to Syria, arguing that it's better to be safe than sorry in the fight against international terrorism.
David Wilkins is also warning that other Canadians with dual citizenship could face a similar fate if they fall under suspicion.
"The United States is committed in its war against terror," Mr. Wilkins said.
"We're committed to making sure that our borders are secure and our country is safe. Will there be other deportations in the future? I'd be surprised if there's not."
Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian birth, was arrested in New York in September 2002, accused by U.S. authorities of having ties to al-Qaeda and deported to Syria.
He denies any terrorist activity and says he was tortured into false confessions in Damascus -- only to be released without charge after a year in jail and returned to Canada.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/06/60minut
Guilty Until Proven
(CBS) Recently, the Justice Department's inspector general released a report criticizing the unduly harsh way our government treated many of the 1,200 Muslim and Middle Eastern men who were rounded up and questioned by U.S. authorities in the months following Sept. 11.
As 60 Minutes first reported earlier this year, and the Justice Department report confirms, many of those men who were held in solitary confinement in maximum security prisons for months on end - without their families being notified, without real access to legal aid, and without being charged with a crime.
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:2, Informative)
Re:the defense of liberty (Score:3, Informative)